Discussing the Diaspora as seen through an internal Black lens
June 7th, 2010
Can somebody explain to me why they’ve got a few dozen people scrubbing grass blades, instead of preventing the oil from reaching the marshlands and the beach shores?
Obama worshipers, and the hapless corporate compromised “news” media keep claiming “there’s nothing the president can do”. Yet, they (BP and the government) are still only talking about putting up barrier islands when we’ve known for weeks that the oil was coming; and wherein they are using boon, it’s a very minimal operation.
This video displays some of the other methods that are going unused, that you’ll scarcely hear talked about in the media; while the political news hacks keep talking about disapproval with Obama being about him not emoting, as opposed to the disappointment being about him not performing:
I’ve also seen a bonding substance displayed where the demonstrator poured water mixed with oil through a tube contain his companies material. The water passed straight threw and came out clear on the other side, while the oil bonded to teh substance. He said that BP had been contacted and they were still waiting on an answer. That was about 2 weeks ago.
If there aren’t ulterior motives for why these prevention and cleanup methods aren’t being used, I’m bereft to understand why not; because I can’t imagine that it’s even possible for both BP and the Obama administration to be this utterly incompetence.
I mean why are the various options not even hardly spoken about by BP, the administration, or the “news” media? If none of these methods being proposed would work, why don’t they come out and tell us this, and explain why not? Instead, it just seem they’re ignoring options besides those that where the status quo listed in BP and other oil company’s hapless oil leak response plans. If it’s not in their book of pre-approved methods, the solution doesn’t count.
posted in News & Events, Video, youtube | | | View blog reactions |
6 Responses to “Why Are Other Options Not Being Used By BP and The Obama Administration”
Leave a Reply
How much has BP contributed to his presidential campaign ? I can’t understand why Obama is frozen on this.
I understand he got a good amount of money from the oil companies.
It’s that, or he wants the oil company lobby’s support on some other initiative, or doesn’t want to upset the overall corporate lobby by taking over the operations of a corporation against it’s will (as opposed to GM who was begging for intervention).
Whatever it is, the situation isn’t what it’s being purported to be; that’s for sure.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Yobachi, Yobachi. Yobachi said: Video and Commentrary on other oil prevention and clean up options. why is BP and Obama not using any of them? http://bit.ly/cK27Ms [...]
[...] are the barrier islands, where are the microbes, where are the bonding agents to soak the oil up; to prevent much of the spread, and clean the rest of oil from the shore when it gets [...]
Obama received $77,000 from BP specifically when he was running for the Senate in Illinois. Of his campaign contributions to date, that is less than one percent of the money he’s raised. He hardly can be said to owe them any favors.
The Wall Street Journal reported in May that Sarah Palin misrepresented information on Obama’s relationship to oil and since then people, including some media outlets, repeat her charge like it’s true. WSJ, however, said: “According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Republicans receive far more campaign money from the oil and gas industry than do Democrats.”
Also, reports the WSJ, “in the 2008 presidential contest, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain received more than twice as much money from the oil and gas industries as Obama: McCain collected $2.4 million; Obama, $898,000.” That’s not from BP but all of the oil industry combined. Place $898 thousand in context of his raising $800 million overall, information from OpenSecrets.org. So, as some would say, his contributions from the oil industry represent a drop in the bucket.
While I think we can criticize the president’s April decision to expand offshore drilling, given that he’s not in favor of that on principle, to make the leap to his being in the pocket of oil companies is a long stretch. There are other factors that explain what appears to be a slow move toward clean-up.
However, both the Republican and Democratic Party politicians of my state, Louisiana, have long been in bed with oil, and some of them have done some dirty deeds to stay in the oil industry’s favor. We are an oil state, which is why many families down here object to Obama’s moratorium on drilling.
I hope people will look beyond, for instance, Bobby Jindal’s weeping for the coastline on television and his pointing the finger at the current administration when it’s a fact that he’s said if it were not for oil his family wouldn’t even have jobs. He’s on record as believing Louisiana can balance any threat to the environment and also drill deep into the Gulf of Mexico.
Jindal’s applauded the Bush policy that gave a free hand to deepwater drilling and he is anti-regulation on pollution because he feels it harms business.
The lease that gave BP the right to drill in deepwater and that ignored that the company had no plan to solve an oil leak was in place before Obama was even president. Furthermore, he had only been in office three months the last time the MMS gave BP a pass, a habit it had developed long before now.
Finally, laws were in place that mandated that the oil company that causes the leak should take the lead on clean-up. We should be asking ourselves why did we ignore the risk to the environment that comes from deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico instead of standing courageously to find and shift to alternative sources of energy.
Nordette, In lieu of another explanation, I don’t think it’s a long stretch at all. Obama’s not explaining to us why these things aren’t being done, he’s just repeating some drivel about going into action from day one, and having meetings. And Bobby Jindal can’t stop Obama from doing anything.
Further, the laws mandates a requirement on the company that makes them responsible; it however does not restrain the government. If a company is responsible for a fire at their manufacturing plant, and the fire spreads past the plant threatening near by neighborhoods, does the companies responsibility then take away the government’s responsibility to step in protect lives and property. Of course not. Everyone would say that’s ridiculous. I don’t see why then anyone accepts that explanation here because it’s just as ridiculous.
Moreover there are other power plays Obama could use to get BP to act much more aggressively, such as the fact that BP has one of the two largest contracts with the Pentagon. Why doesn’t he use threats of moving that contract to leverage greater cooperation?
I mean if all Obama’s got for me is BP’s my daddy, and the government can do nothing; then he and the whole political process have lost me. It’s pointless.